As The Guardian has reported in the last hour, Stephen Timms told the Commons after 5 pm with regard to the Bill delivering benefit reforms:
I can announce that we are going to remove the clause five from the bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms review, and only make changes to Pip eligibility, activities and descriptors following that review.
The government is committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.
As The Guardian then notes:
That is another big concession.
It means there is a chance that new Pip eligibility rules will not come into force in November 2026.
They added:
Much more importantly, it means that the switch to the four-point Pip eligibility rule may never happen at all. It won't be in the legislation. And there is no guarantee the Timms review will revive the idea – certainly if it is genuinely “co-produced” with disabled people, as the government promises. The four-point rule was the key instrument that was going to deliver the £2.5bn savings that, this morning, the Treasury was going to deliver.
This means MPs are set to pass a bill that won't necessarily deliver anything like the level of cuts originally planned. It is a huge win for those campaigning against it.
In fact, this Bill now delivers no significant cuts at all. Those that are left should still be abandoned, though.
There is no beating about the bush here. What must have happened is that sometime late this afternoon, the Whips told Labour that they were still going to be defeated by their own backbenchers and so, to avoid this embarrassment, the Bill had to be gutted, leaving it almost meaningless.
No government Bill has done this badly for 40 years, and that was a relatively minor one in the Thatcher era, and this was a fundamental Bill in the Starmer era.
The callousness of the Labour government has been exposed. Its own backbenchers have rightly hammered it.
The time has come for the government to rethink, entirely. It has almost all its policies wrong. It's not just this issue. The whole of its austerity programme is unjustified, and that is now obvious.
Labour has a choice. They can demand total change from Starmer, or they can demand that Starmer go. There are no other alternatives, and only one of these is likely to be viable, given that Starmer, Reeves, Kendall and many others in the Cabinet have not a shred of credibility left.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think today has to be the end of Liz Kendall (I hope). Reeves and Starmer to follow in short order, I hope again.
One can live in hope.
I have no love for Kendall, but she’s a sideshow. Starmer and Reeves are the driver and navigator, and it is with them that any meaningful change needs to start.
Social murder at home, complicity with genocide abroad, attacking our democratic rights to protect that complicity, plus coming to power in the first place through a whole set of deeply unscrupulous political machinations: the whole “Starmer” faction needs to be gone. Also, we could really do with being allowed to have the likes of articulate, conviction-driven, clear-thinking, left-wing MPs such as Clive Lewis on the ballot this time too.
Clive Lewis was a teller, which is why he wasn’t named, along with Andy McDonald.
I loved Ian Lavery getting into his Northumbrian vernacular, ” This is crazy, man, this is ridiculous, man!” talking to madam deputy speaker.
He was right
As an aside, while on an undergraduate archaeology dig, with a Geordie supervisor, I was once informed of an error by the shouted words “Wahey man Cyndy man Cyndy.” I love the Geordies
Potential Labour leadership contenders need the support of at least 20% of Labour MPs. That currently (I think) works out at 81MPs.
The current 2024 intake does not contain 81 MPs sympathetic to Clive Lewis’s politics. That was why McTeam had the rules changed and laid such a heavy hand on candidate selection.
Of course we live in interesting times. So anything is possible.
I’m going to dust off my Terry Pratchett archive for future political analyses. Westminstet gets more like Ankh Morpork every day. (He’s very good on religion too btw)
Pratchett as a British social philosopher is still seriously underrated. I suspect he would see this as a good thing. We listen to all of his works that are in talking books on a cycle to sleep/wake to nightly. The actor Nigel Planer’s renditions are wonderful. I hear more of the humour wrapped subtleties every time I listen to them. I do not know if they are still available though. I signed the global petition calling for Death to return Terry Pratchett to us just after he passed on. Bit of a fan…
Well, there we have it. We don’t have a Government, and we don’t have an Opposition. The Labour-Conservative cartel, which is the Single Transferable Party demonstrably cannot govern, and its doppelganger (the Conservative-Labour Opposition) cannot function persuasively, even as an Official Opposition.. They have both finally been found out. The system itself is demonstrably bust.
This is what happens when you pin your faith on an FPTP system in the 21st century; a system that cannot does not represent people, but ‘Party’ (a scarcely disguised Cartel/Single Transferable Party that serves Sovereign Prerogative Power and the mystical power of the Treasury, which is now defined and executed in terms of the self-justifying, evidence-free authority of the ‘Fiscal Rules’; whoever wins a General Election. The single Transferable Party can’t lose, and doesn’t lose; ever. Nothing ever changes, or ever can change. The Single Transferable Party simply recycles itself endlessly. Forever. To the end of days.
This is what happens when you rely on a seventeenth century electoral system transformed by the Single Transferable Party through modern neo-Rotten Boroughs in its own exclusive interest; with constituencies that are answerable solely to a two-Party Cartel that do not serve the public, but spend its time closing off democracy from the people; and failing to deliver checks and balances over Government solely intent on protecting absolute power.
Much to agree with
Mr Warren, you make very fair points – & your idea of MPs representing the interests of their constitutents is an original one – but in these interesting times many MPs represent other interests – although in this case – survival seems to have modified the minds of some. That said: 18th century politics in the 21st cent are finished.
I have a sense we have reached an end point – where the non-elected (McSwine & co) call the shots through gullible /malleable drones (Starmer etc). Which leaves the question – what comes next – “real” change (not change the curtains change) or revolution (with tumbrils).
Last week @ a conference the President of the industry association Eurometaux said that none of the EU institutions ever assumed responsibility for what they did. I have a sense of that with govs’ in the UK. Gidiot/Cam-moron killed (murdered?) circa 130k people (2010 – 2015) – the sanction? they won an election. Something is very deeply wrong with the whole of the UK when things like that occur. Ditto LINO offering change & delivering – nowt.
Much to agree with. In sane politics Starmer would inevitably go, but I have a horrible feeling he may survive. And if he does go, do we risk getting Wes Streeting instead?
Is there ANY chance of backbenchers doing the right thing?
Angela Rayner for PM.. that won’t last 5 minutes
Cant see any of them going..
The vast majority of mP’s probably accept the dominent framework – ‘there is no money’ – and just differ as to what to do about it.
Did anyone else spot this nasty spiteful bit of journalism from Jessica Elgot?
They really can’t let go can they?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/jul/01/welfare-bill-vote-labour-conservatives-keir-starmer-universal-credit-pip-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?page=with%3Ablock-686427328f084cce07ef6881#block-686427328f084cce07ef6881
Sir Keir Starmer is hanging by a thread after the humiliation surrounding this bill, making consessions and back tracking from the orginal bill
will only weaken his power and authority as leader. I’m sure a much greater test of his authority will come around much sooner than he expects as the rebels dig in further to erode his authority.
Agreed
I am disabled, I pass the 4 point rule, I need now someone with me to help me through the day, I am lucky, my wife is with me 24/7, she bathes me cooks for me and makes my life worth living. She keeps me here on this world, if I didn’t have pip and I didn’t have her, I wouldn’t be here.
I am sick and tired of being judged for paltry allowances by a bunch of people who have more money in their wallets than I have in everything that I own.
I have enough, I don’t need more, but these wealthy people who want to rule me, want what little I have got too. They want to impoverish me, so that I have to bow to their every whim. It will never happen, I will not give these petty small minded greedy MP’s, civil servants, wealthy corporates, rich tax dodging media moguls, sly vicious investors and shareholders that, they do next to nothing and earn their filthy dirty money and try to destroy me by taking what little I have. These grubbing bribe taking M.P.’s with three four or five houses that are paid for by this country I spit on them all and if you try me I WILL end it. One way or another you will not make me miserable again. Basically (sorry about this) but FUCK EM ALL.
Rik
I think many here will totally understand and agree with your sentiments.
Go well. May you have what you need. I think campaigning has worked on this one.
So… In reality, As I suspected, this hellish bill goes through.
Hysteria in the tabloids ‘the country will go bankrupt by its welfare bill’ no counter argument of course. Liz stands firm, will not resign, determind to see it through.
Starmer… Dont think he cares one iota about his reputation. Water off a ducks back to him.
I am deeply, deeply sceptical about the concessions NOT being written into the bill that was passed. Starmer has proved he will say anything to get his way, even blatant lies. Like when someone asks for a loan to get an item. Once the mood has passed, they suddenly struggle to pay the loan back, now they have what they want.
I fear the confusion and chaos is part of the game.
Something is going very wrong in this world…
I really wish I could feel optimistic tonight, but can only see darkness.
I think you are wrong
No one in Labour’s leadership planned or wanted this
This is a defeat
Sometimes it is wise to accept things at face value.
This is one such occasion.
I hope you are right Richard and I am wrong.
@ Richard,
I couldn’t agree more; your reference to a defeat raises another issue for me:
Parliamentary time is limited, so squandering it on ill-considered proposals is yet another example of Labour’s ineptitude.
Don’t give up yet. The bill has not “gone through”. It has had a 2nd reading.
The bill to be presented for 3rd reading on Wednesday, will be a very different one, minus at least Clause 5 (all the PIP changes) and with the Timms review commitments built in (consultation before change).
If it isn’t, then it will fail.
The government suffered a huge and embarrassing defeat last night. Starmer is a busted forensic flush. Reeves is stuck with a £3m (invented) “fiscal” problem, which she will “solve” by freezing tax allowances yet again but not till the autumn when the headlines have faded (about the most regressive thing she could do, in tax terms). She needs a new abacus. Prepare for more hard hats and hi-vis jacket photo opportunities, possibly even safety glasses too. Growth, growth, growth.
If things get really bad she may have to suit up in full radiological protection suit and helmet to visit a nuclear facility. Starmer may go to visit a nuclear submarine and opt for camo gear and a flak jacket. Growth – external threat – danger – protect our borders – more articles from Polly Toynbee (that’s when you know it’s really serious).
Of course he may still remain PM. That depends on what his masters, backers, donors and foreign government controllers say.
Unless 81 re-energised Labour MPs challenge him. Which they can do.
The one group of people who have NO say in this, of course, is the adult voters of the UK.
Is there any point in the bill (minus clause 5 and anything else they have promised not to do) worth a 3rd reading. Would it not be better to withdraw it and start again? Or would that make the government look even worse than it now looks (if that is possible)?
Logic clearly does not come into this.
And there are still some UC cuts they want to try to force through.
https://labourlist.org/2020/01/labour-must-modernise-or-die-clive-lewis-sets-out-vision-for-labour/
This was Clive Lewis’s campaign in 2019. He was one of the candidates ousted by McSweeney, although not thought as harmful as Corbyn so left in the party.
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/labour-apart-how-morgan-mcsweeney-levered-the-left-out-of-power/
One thing that Lewis has going for him is the support of all those MPs and voters who want PR. He is a member of Compass.
After today’s debacle I think that lots of labour MPs will also want that as a way to keep their seats at the next election. They certainly won’t keep them by supporting Starmer’s or Streeting’s labour party.
The real losers may well be the British people – the party in government may well just turn inward again and start to beat itself up, fight itself which it has become rather good at these last 15 years and not much good at anything else.
Whither democracy? Yes.
And why are MPs allowed to abstain? Jesus Christ! They are the highest court in the land and are highly paid. They are their to make decisions, not ‘abstain’.
@ PSR,
On abstentions, take the SNP’s position as an example: they stayed out of the entire process on the Assisted Dying bill; it won’t apply in Scotland and will have no, or negligible, effect on Scotland’s budget. They did, however, vote against this England and Wales specific legislation, because the cuts would have Barnett consequentals, leading to a corresponding cut in the block grant.
How would you go about forcing them to into a binary vote; or deal with Sinn Féin who are permanently absent?
One possible approach would be to count all abstentions (including the Sinn Féin ones) as a Nay at all times. That actually seems reasonable, especially for Sinn Féin.
No, it is the British people that keep making the same mistake at elections; over and over again. The Party system is bust, but keeps on delivering the Party General Election result it requires and seeks. When the Scots delivered Labour a winning result in Scotland in the 2024 General Election, even in a low turnout, distorted result election (which is the whole purpose of FPTP; to deliver the winning Party a huge Parliamentary majority with less than 25% support from the registered electorate – in short, strong ruthless Government guaranteed by the political support of almost nobody). It is a comic absurdity; literally crackpot – but the public keeps voting for it, again and again and again. I confess I was surprised to see the Scots were capable of still falling for it; and that is an indictment of the electorate’s profound political ignorance and indifference. The public just doesn’t “get it”. The British public is just too easily duped, time after time, after time, after time. At some point they have to take some responsibility for this endless debacle.
Expecting a credible response from Starmer – the so-called international lawyer who believes Israel has the right to prevent aid from reaching Palestine – is stretching credulity!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/02/labour-government-welfare-bill-democracy-party-election-john-mcdonnell
Well said
This was a huge unforced error. The writing has been on the wall for weeks that this was a sticking point with MPs
One of the things that has defined this government is party discipline and kicking out MPs who rebeled. It was perhaps the one thing that kept Starmer going.
That’s out the window now, MPs are much more likely to try to stop the government doing harmful things now. It’s about time.
Even if the current cabinet remains unchanged their blank cheque to push whatever they want through parliament has gone
One interesting comment last night I came across, was that in answer to the question of why the vote still went ahead after most of the content had been gutted, was that the reason (a vote happened at all) was to keep Liz Kendall in her post.
If so, all a little bit pathetic.
I have just listened to BBC Radio Scotland GMS, where two fecklessly inept participants (BBC ‘journalist’ and Scottish Labour MP interviewee) both talk in gibberish over the collapse of the Welfare Bill. The political problem in Welfare (forget the real problem, that is totally beyond our political system to address, or manage competently), was based on an attempt to save around £5Bn for the Treasury, and use the harsh PIP application system, with a new focus on treating applicants as potential malingerers, who should prove to the Government that they are not lying, before receiving any money. The whole political spin on the issue has been on the vast ‘Daily Mail’ type obsession that is the core of our politics; centred on anecdotal stories of the chancers, cheats and charlatans who trick the DWP and GPs to accepting their stories, paying thousands – which are use to holiday in the sun, and avoid work. Labour MPs have had enough of this.
Why is this all gibberish in Scotland? PIP doesn’t even apply in Scotland. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) has been replaced by the Adult Disability Payment (ADP) in Scotland. The main reason for this change appears to have been the hostile application regime around PIP, that was not acceptable to the Scottish Government. The change was introduced early this year. The ADP system is no doubt far short of where Government would like it to be; but it has at least addressed some very bad outcomes with PIP that Starmer and his witless gophers have failed evwn to acknowledge because all that matter is the Fiscal Rules.
BBC Radio Scotland GMS and its Labour MP this morning did not even mention the ADP system, or the differences between Scotland and Westminster. I switch on BBC Radio, and listen to so-called Scottish journalists and Labour MPs, and discover that I have entered a virtual, fantasy Unionist World, couthy, parochial and toe-curling – in which the real Scotland conveniently doesn’t even actually exist. God help us.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/02/welfare-bill-climbdown-will-have-a-cost-at-budget-says-senior-minister
McTeam is talking economic gibberish again supported by “fiscal think tank” IFS.
“You can’t spend the same money twice” says McFadden… oh dear, but Pat, you don’t HAVE to. There is spare money lying around all over the place, if only you looked in the right places.
And who said government spends other people’s money anyway? That isn’t the way money works, Pat. Hasn’t anyone told you?
“We stand as a team” says McTeam spokesman Pat McFadden.
I sincerely hope that you all fall as a team too. The sooner, the better.
Sorry – r above is me, RobertJ.
Fat finger syndrome.
“It has been a difficult process, I’m not going to deny that,” McFadden said. This was, he argued, because Labour MPs “care about the people involved, care about the issues involved. ”
Although not the gov it would
seem
The main lesson of this PIP Benefits debacle appears not to have been learnt namely you can’t have true democracy unless people understand for a human society to use money it must have an entity that can both create money and regulate it. Further that entity can only be its government for a range of reasons: enabling a single currency, ensuring stability when commercial banks default and unexpected shocks occur such as war and pandemics.
Most importantly of all, however, for normal times is for the government to be able to maintain demand when a facet of using money, that of saving, is taking place, and this usually requires government to run a deficit, create more money for spending than it gets back mainly from taxation. With none of Britain’s political parties understanding the above, or only partially so, the nonsense of the government needing to balance its books gets in the way of democracy being able to properly function an important element of which is responding to need.
In response to all comments, especially John S Warren and others, the reason I wrote Reinventing Democracy is that I could see the UK system had reached a dead end. Evolution in small steps, slowly, cannot work. The 1662 model cannot cope with the complexity of the twenty-first century. Here are the key arguments as I see them now:
1. Replacing FPTP, with no other changes, may entrench Farage in government.
2. The UK is on course to break up. Northern Ireland has a reunification right under the Belfast agreement, and will join the Irish Republic in a decade or so. Then it will be impossible to refuse Scotland the right to leave. Once Scotland is back in the EU, Wales will follow. This will leave England alone, with customs and passport controls within Great Britain on the Scottish and Welsh borders.
3. England will have to strip itself of its imperial delusions, which means sorting out the relationship with overseas territories, especially Gibraltar. The UK required Spain to put its claim over Gibraltar on one side when it joined the EU in 1986, as a condition of not vetoing Spanish entry. In future Spain will use its veto to extract concessions. The choices will be England alone as a rule-taker, unable to ever make the rules again, or let Gibraltar go, or incorporate Gibraltar into the UK now, before UK break-up and before trying to rejoin the EU.
4. The archaic Privy Council must be abolished. It makes law with zero democratic input (these laws are called “Orders in Council”).
5. Only with a strong People’s Council replacing the Lords and Privy Council can there be any hope of democratic control. The “Assembly of Nations and Regions” is a toothless talking shop unable to override an all-powerful executive.
6. To achieve this we need a federal structure of governance and a proper, modern, written constitution (a first-draft is chapter 8 in the book) instead of the nonsense that any parliament can make and repeal any law. And in the detail, a constitutional requirement that all political and governance communications at all times be “clear, fair, and not misleading” with a rapid enforcement mechanism.
There are too many campaigns pushing minor changes, but nobody sees the whole picture. The Establishment has successfully adopted “divide and rule”.
On point 1., I have written frequently here and elsewhere that the replacement to FPTP has to be a form of PR that does not produce a Party List system (the Holyrood system cooked up in Westminster to protect the Unionist Party cartel); STV is the obvious one. You cannot prevent a Farage if people vote for it; but in a non-Party List PR system his grip on power will usually be insecure, and transient. The back-up to PR required is a written Constitution (conventionally), providing chaecks and balances. Unfortunately this is not going well currently in the US, where there is no balance, and little check.
The problem is that a ‘checks and balances’ system works well when there is a broad consensus, but in adversity, and when bad government over a long period has led to public misery, such as system does not change things quickly – the checks and balances favour the status quo; and leaves the door open to the snake-oil salesman with a quick fix to offer. In the age of neoliberal individualism (everyone for themself alone, and ‘sauve qui peut’ in a crisis), good, reforming civic government is hard; and attentions spans are short. The fact is that democracy requires a well-informed, public spirited, independent-minded, committed, and civic-minded electorate to function properly; and that we do not have in sufficient numbers in the UK, or US. Democracy does not necessarily produce good Government; it therefore comes with costs and risks. Democracies are called on to save themselves, and that – we can plainly see – is hard to achieve with an elctorate that prefers inertia and finger-pointing to active, intelligent politics.
As for your points 2-6? I am touched by your optimism, but “The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley”. Never to be seen again.
Thanks
The US is a poor model for a federal structure and written constitution. Separation of federal powers can be bought, and has been manipulated. The people have no right to intervene at Federal level save in biennial elections to Congress, and the constitution is almost impossible to change.
Better examples can be found, e.g. Australia, Canada, Germany, Switzerland. But I agree public education is essential, and the public will soon discover that they can no longer just switch on and choose an image in the few days before polling.
I don’t know if anyone else saw PMQs today, but Rachel reeves looked as if she spent the night in tears and was about to burst into tears at any moment.
I tweeted she looked broken
She very clearly is
I have no sympathy
She demonised hundreds of thousands of people.
I don’t agree with 90% of Labours policies but this was something essential. Yes they are genuine claimants but the vast majority are raking in cash that is unsustainable. People are getting cash for being drug or alcohol addicts and I know first hand they use that cash for what you would expect. Why do you need the extra cash for if you are say depressed? Most people are at some point.
I don’t mean to offend any genuinely disabled people but my honest view is the system is being bled dry. Not just through this but as usual the people who work on low incomes will have to subsidise all this in tax
Very politely, you are very ignorant.
If you think addiction is a choice, go and learn about it. The fact that it is not a choice is apparent from the description: what about the word addiction do you not understand?
And do you have any comprehension at all of what depression involves? Or anxiety? Your comment suggests you have not a clue what the difference between beiung fed up and depression is.
And tell me how giving people the means to survive bleeds the system dry? What would you prefer? That they were on the streets and dying?
Why not find out, rather than writing nonsense, even about the economics of this?
You do not even know that tax does not pay for this. I despair.
I think to a degree it is a choice and as someone who has stopped recreational drugs alcohol and cigarettes it can be done with willpower. Plus why give people money who are addicts it’s obvious what they will spend it on.
When soldiers went to Vietnam I lot tried heroin as was so cheap and available but scientists were shocked as only a small percentage carried on doing it. For most it was tied up with their environment.
I would give these people a choice you start picking up litter or work on a farm whatever they can do. They get drug tested and if they fail say good bye to cash. Or they could earn good money get housing and their self respect back with help offered but they has to be some tough love. Most will never quit otherwise. Paying them just less than a full time minimum wage worker won’t help them and won’t help anyone when we go bankrupt
Very politely, you are either very stupid or a callous bastard. Your ignorance is off the scale. And your arrogance ‘I did it, so you can too’ is off the scale. Meanwhile, your paternalism is absurd. Do you have the slugtest idea what good housing costs, or is that something you have never had to worry about?
And might I ask, when we deny addicts money, what do you think they resort to?
You also showed all the classic traits of a troll in just two posts.
John, you DID offend, grossly. Don’t apologise, because you knew exactly what you were doing, and I wouldn’t accept your apology.
You cited no evidence for your ridiculous bigoted opinions.
My adult alcoholic son died suddenly 6 months ago, we are still waiting for the coroner’s report. By the way, he got NO extra UC health element or PIP. He was always doing his best to find and hold down work. You of course never met him, so you wouldn’t know anything about his life.
Did you want to discuss this rationally with evidence and personal and professional experience to back up those opinions of yours? Because I can. Addiction (<20 yrs as a carer). Benefits (5 yrs running a food bank), people in need (27 years as a community focussed church pastor).
I hope you never need support from the system the way he did. But if you do, you may change your mind.
Thanks Robert.
And my sympathy: alcoholism is a ghastly disease. My extended family knows about it.
You gave up “recreational” tobacco and alcohol, and you think that qualifies you to give us your opinions on addiction?
Bye bye.
I’m not wasting any more time on your callous bigotry.
I have now treated him as spam. He came back with more conceited shit…